National Civic Summit - University Of Minnestoa - Chris Uggen
•Download as PPT, PDF•
0 likes•449 views
The document summarizes research on felon disenfranchisement laws and their impact. It finds that US disenfranchisement laws are the most restrictive globally and disproportionately impact minority populations. Surveys show most public support voting rights for felons after completing sentences, but not for those currently incarcerated. Studies link regaining the ability to vote to lower recidivism rates.
![an nsf/soros project with jeff manza ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],07/22/09]()
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (18)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (8)
Similar to National Civic Summit - University Of Minnestoa - Chris Uggen
Similar to National Civic Summit - University Of Minnestoa - Chris Uggen (9)
More from National Civic Summit
More from National Civic Summit (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
National Civic Summit - University Of Minnestoa - Chris Uggen
- 1. the price and promise of citizenship: felon disenfranchisement and american democracy christopher uggen university of minnesota 07/22/09
- 3. I. rising numbers since the 1970s 07/22/09
- 6. 5.3 million people (2004 estimates) 07/22/09
- 7. about 1 in 4 disenfranchised Minnesotans are incarcerated (2007)
- 9. hazard plots for the passage of restrictive and liberal felon disenfranchisement laws, 1850-2002 07/22/09
- 10. overall vote dilution 07/22/09
- 11. as percentage of VAP 07/22/09
- 12. as percentage of African American VAP 07/22/09
- 13. disenfranchisement rate as percentage of MN voting age population by race
- 15. political trust and efficacy 07/22/09
- 21. a. general population (YDS) (with Manza; Columbia Human Rights Law Review 2004b ) 07/22/09
- 23. c. Oregon: voting probationers and parolees have significantly lower recidivism rates 07/22/09
- 25. The public supports voting for ex-felons, probationers, and parolees, but not prisoners 07/22/09
- 26. framing effects 07/22/09
- 30. citizens, felons, and social choices 07/22/09
- 32. 07/22/09
- 34. 07/22/09
- 35. 07/22/09
- 36. 07/22/09
Editor's Notes
- October 15, 2004
- October 15, 2004
- October 15, 2004 State regimes, from least restrictive to most restrictive 48 states now disenfranchise prisoners, 14 disenfranchise some or all ex-felons Appendix 1 shows the different populations disenfranchised in each state and the percentage of the state’s voting age population affected (summarized in overhead). 4.7 million total legally disenfranchised (many more are practically disenfranchised). Our projections for November 2000 exceed 5 million or more than 2.5% of the VAP. Summary figures show the distribution by race (38% African American) and correctional population (40% Ex, 25% Prison, 10% Parole, 25% Probation).
- October 15, 2004 5 Million poor people
- October 15, 2004 Many states passed laws in the aftermath of the Civil War; laws have persisted until today, particularly the stricter laws in the South disenfranchising ex-felons (Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Virginia, Kentucky)
- University of Indiana 07/22/09 The next slide shows the hazard estimates for legal restrictions and liberalization– I like plotting hazard rates because it gives a nice visual representation of when the action occurs. Here you see a peak in the 1860s and 1870s for restrictive changes; liberal changes peak in 1960s and 1970s (mostly due to states paring back their lifetime bans). These were the dependent variables in the event history analysis -- we found that restrictive changes were predicted by the racial composition of state prisons. chris uggen
- October 15, 2004
- October 15, 2004
- October 15, 2004
- October 15, 2004
- October 15, 2004
- October 15, 2004
- October 15, 2004
- October 15, 2004
- October 15, 2004
- October 15, 2004
- October 15, 2004 Correlation between voting and crime, arrest, and incarceration? Clear differences in arrest an incarceration by levels of political participation Both contrasts represent statistically significant differences ( p <.001) between those who participated in the 1996 election and those who did not participate.
- October 15, 2004
- October 15, 2004
- October 15, 2004
- October 15, 2004
- October 15, 2004
- October 15, 2004 When criminologists refer to “citizens,” they generally use the term in opposition to criminal offenders, placing criminals on one side of the street and law-abiding community residents on the other. Our research demonstrates that felons think of themselves as citizens, assuming roles as taxpayers, homeowners, volunteers, and voters. As they develop socioeconomic, familial, and civic role commitments, the salience of their identities as law-abiding citizens rises and the salience of their identities as felons recedes. With this gradual shift in the identity salience hierarchy, their actions will more consistently meet the expectations of the citizen role. We therefore suggest that civic reintegration and establishing an identity as a law-abiding citizen are central to the process of desistance from crime.
- University of Indiana 07/22/09 chris uggen
- October 15, 2004 incarcerated citizens have been eligible to vote in that nation since 2002, when the supreme court of canada ruled that barring prisoners from voting was contrary to the canadian charter of rights and freedoms. according to ctv , about 25 percent of 35,000 eligible prisoners were expected to cast ballots. the story quotes conservative leader steven harper as saying, &quot;no, I don't agree with prisoner voting.&quot; manitoba inmate jeff power (shown in the ctv photo at left) shaved a maple leaf and liberal 'L' into the side of his head. &quot;We're all voting for the Liberals, just because we want to keep our vote.&quot;
- October 15, 2004
- October 15, 2004
- October 15, 2004
- October 15, 2004 We ran 3 models. One with just voting, one with background controls, and one with time-varying controls. First, significance: voting is a significant negative predictor, Af Am, property and drug crimes too. Once we control for age, size of voting effect (and property offenses) drops. Now, interpretation: For dichotomies such as voting, we interpret the exponentiated coefficient or “risk ratio” as the ratio of the estimated hazard for voters versus non-voters. With all controls, the hazard of recidivism for voters is about .23 (a fourth) the hazard of recidivism for non-voters. So the hazard of arrest is 77% lower for those who’d voted in the previous biennial election than for non-voters, net of the other variables
- October 15, 2004